The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Loading ...

Loading ...

This story appears in the {{article.article.magazine.pretty_date}} issue of {{article.article.magazine.pubName}}. Subscribe

There's been a lot of griping lately about Ford Motor's new hybrids not living up to their promised fuel economy, so I was anxious to spend some time behind the wheel of the new 2013 Ford C-Max utility and test its performance for myself.

The C-Max is Ford's first dedicated hybrid, aimed squarely at the Toyota Prius V, and the carmaker has been getting a lot of advertising mileage out of its "47/47/47" miles per gallon ratings in city/highway/combined driving.

The problem is nobody who drives the car seems to be able to achieve those eye-popping numbers. Consumer Reports tried, running the C-Max (as well as the new "47-mpg" Ford Fusion hybrid) through its real-world tests. But CR didn't get anywhere close to 47 mpg. It got 37 mpg overall in the C-Max, with 35 in the city and 38 on the highway. The Fusion hybrid delivered 39 mpg overall -- the best of any family sedan Consumer Reports tests -- but still well short of the 47 mpg rating. Other reviewers, like the Wall Street Journal's Dan Neil, found similar results. Now Ford is facing a federal class action lawsuit in California, claiming its marketing campaign is "false and misleading" and that Ford used "misrepresentations and omissions" to promote the cars. (UPDATE: Ford says plenty of people are hitting the EPA number. C-Max owners are sharing their real-world mileage at this online forum. It's worth checking out.)

Even Raj Nair, Ford's group vice president of global product development, conceded "the way I drive" the C-Max falls short of the 47-mpg rating by 12 miles per gallon, or 25 percent.

But Nair says such variability is to be expected in a hybrid, where factors such as speed, temperature and even the age of the vehicle can dramatically impact one's fuel economy. You can get 47 miles per gallon -- and Nair says he has consistently done so -- by driving in EcoCruise mode, at 60 miles per hour, and using all the coaching tools Ford provides on the instrument panel to perfect your braking and acceleration behavior. The reward is a big cluster of green leaves that appears on the dashboard screen.

If you are really gentle with the accelerator, you can supposedly get up to highway speed (62 miles per hour) on pure electricity, without the gas engine ever kicking on. That'll boost your fuel economy, for sure. It might be doable on a dynamometer in a testing lab. But it's hard to drive that way in the real world, partly because the C-Max is just so much fun to drive.

I tried during a 104-mile round trip between Detroit and Ann Arbor, Mich., the other day. Ford had loaned me a C-Max Energi from its fleet of press review cars. The C-Max Energi is a plug-in derivative of the C-Max, which is supposed to be even more efficient because it can run longer in electric-only mode. Ford says the C-Max Energi delivers 100 MPGe in combined city/highway driving, but given the hubbub over its 47 mpg claims, I'm inclined to take that with a grain of salt.

The C-Max Energi can go up to 620 miles on a single tank of gas and a fully charged battery, according to Ford, which is 80 miles farther than Toyota's new Prius plug-in. And Ford says you can also drive up to 21 miles in electric mode only; the Prius plug-in goes just six miles on pure electricity. The top speed in EV mode is 85 miles per hour, which is 25 mph better than the Prius plug-in. As far as I'm concerned, all this seems purely hypothetical.

The C-Max Energi has an EV mode button on the center stack that lets the driver choose between three modes: electric-only driving, normal hybrid mode (which blends electric and gasoline engine power as appropriate) or EV-later mode, which reserves the battery pack power for later use. There's even a feature called EV+ that allows the vehicle to stay in electric-only mode for longer durations once it learns your frequent destinations.

Unfortunately, for reasons that are still unclear to me, the EV mode was "unavailable" when I was driving, so I was limited to automatic hybrid mode anyway. Even if I couldn't get the Energi's full 100 mpg-equivalent, I figured I ought to get close to the C-Max's 47 mpg. I was willing to cut a little slack because the C-Max Energi comes with a 7.6 kWh lithium-ion battery that is five times larger than the battery in the regular C-Max, adding 252 pounds to the car's overall weight (and by the way, dramatically cutting down on cargo space).

For the first leg of my trip, I tiptoed on the accelerator and brake pedal, gliding whenever possible, until I got to the freeway, where I set the cruise control at 62 mph and didn't touch the accelerator or the brake again until I exited the freeway 45 minutes later. The road was almost completely flat, the weather cooperated (for January in Michigan) and so did traffic.

When I stopped for lunch, the car's computer said I had gone 51 miles, and averaged 35.5 mpg. Hmm. For the trip back to Detroit, I decided to drive the way I normally do, slightly over the speed limit, at around 75 miles an hour. Back home, the car said I'd gone 49.6 miles, and averaged 36.7 mpg. That was a surprise! I didn't expect to do better driving more aggressively. Overall, during my 104.2-mile trip, I averaged 35.6 mpg, well short of the promised 47 mpg.

I don't know why I'm complaining. Our family minivan, a 2007 Chrysler Town & Country with a 3.8-liter V6, purportedly gets 16 mpg city/23 hwy. I think we were lucky to get 21 on a long road trip. To me, 36 miles per gallon is heaven!

But the federal government demands that carmakers achieve the equivalent of 35.5 mpg, on average, across their entire lineup by the 2016 model year. The bar is raised even higher by 2025, when vehicle fleets must average 54.5 mpg. With big trucks and SUVs in the mix, automakers need small cars like the C-Max to overachieve.

The consequences are huge, not just because the cost of fuel-saving technologies can be onerous. There's the marketing advantage, of course, for whichever company can claim best-in-class mileage. And those that don't hit the mark must pay a gas-guzzler tax. And let's not forget the potentially devastating brand damage that could result when a company fails to live up to customers' expectations. Hyundai Motor got caught overstating mileage numbers on a third of its cars -- it blames a mistake in testing procedures in Korea -- and is now trying to make good by reimbursing customers with gas debit cards.

Ford is not accused of cooking its fuel economy numbers. The company says it followed the Environmental Protection Agency's testing procedures to the T and the C-Max earned its EPA-certified 47 mpg rating. Ford executives also say, however, that they're working with the EPA to see if any changes are needed in its certification testing.

As Forbes contributor Jim Gorzelany explained recently, EPA mileage ratings are an elegant fiction. In fact, the EPA doesn't do the testing at all. Instead, automakers measure a vehicle's fuel economy under rigidly controlled circumstances in a laboratory using a standardized test that’s mandated by federal law. Then they submit the results to the EPA, which reviews the data and spot-checks about 15 percent of the ratings.

It seems to me the testing procedures, last revised in 2007, are ripe for review again, especially because it's gotten tougher to predict fuel-economy for so many emerging technologies, like hybrids, electric cars and natural gas vehicles. An EPA spokeswoman could not say whether the fuel economy protocols would be reviewed.

The funny thing is, I really, really like the C-Max and would strongly consider buying one. It's good-looking, has room for five and flexible cargo space. At a starting price of about $25,000, it's a great value. Add some nice features like Ford's unique hands-free liftgate and a premium audio and navigation system, and you'll probably pay $30,000.

The best thing is, it's zippy and responsive, and truly a hoot to drive. And at 36 mpg, what's there to complain about?